Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House resumed at 8 o’clock, p.m.

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2 (CONTINUED)

Mr. Speaker: When we rose at 6 o’clock we were considering a certain resolution and some hon. member had just finished. Does the Minister of Agriculture and Food wish to lead off?

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this discussion on the resolution that was presented by a number of my colleagues.

Before I make any comments on the resolution, I would like to pay tribute to the electoral boundaries commission for grappling with what would appear to many to be an almost impossible task. I pay tribute to the members for doing as well as they certainly did with a most thankless and complex job.

I suppose it would require the wisdom of Solomon and several others combined to ever possibly be able to draw riding boundaries that would meet with the approval of everybody concerned, whether they be members of this honourable assembly or whether they be the constituents that we have the privilege and honour of representing in this House.

But, sir, I would draw your attention to the resolution that was presented on Dec. 5, 1973, in the afternoon session of that day, which not only established the commission but also went further, to set up the purposes of the commission. Might I draw your attention, sir, to page 6614 of Hansard of that day, which mentions that for the purpose of the distribution the commission shall take into account: (a) community or diversity of interests; (b) communication; (c) topographical features; (d) population trends; (e) the varying conditions and requirements regarding representation as between urban and rural electoral districts; (f) existing boundaries of municipalities or wards thereof.

It went on to describe several other matters that I believe are pertinent to those very important terms of reference.

If one is to take into consideration those matters that have been already referred to, speaking first of the diversity of interests, and taking into consideration the representation between rural and urban electoral districts and the elect existing boundaries of municipalities --

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): What’s the minister’s point? What is his point?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: -- one would be drawn to the inescapable conclusion that the stand taken by my colleague and friend from Middlesex South (Mr. Eaton), by the member for London North (Mr. Walker), and the member for London South (Mr. White), would seem appropriate and reasonable. I simply point out to you, sir, that in the 17 years I have represented a part of Middlesex county --

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): Hoist on his own petard.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: -- there has never been a time nor any item or issue that has generated as much interest and concern in the county of Middlesex as the proposed redistribution boundaries.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): It’s a dog and cat game!

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, indeed; and take that into consideration, if you wish, Mr. Speaker, because I would say I’ve had 10 times as many letters on this issue as I had on the --

Mr. Bullbrook: That is something, oh boy.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: -- cat and dog issue.

Mr. Bullbrook: Does the minister mean to say that with inflation, unemployment and the problems we have, that they are worried about boundaries? Isn’t that something, isn’t that something!

Mr. Speaker: Order; order please.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: My hon. friend from Sarnia gets himself all worked up and all excited. He can make allusions to my friends from Holstein county.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. I would ask the member for Sarnia to kindly let up on his interjections.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: It will be interesting reading for my people in Middlesex county to read how little their friend the Liberal member for Sarnia, the great Bullbrook, thinks of the people of Middlesex county. Let that be recorded in Hansard.

Mr. Bullbrook: Yes.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Let that be recorded, precise and clear.

Mr. Bullbrook: Let me tell my friend the minister, if that’s all they have to worry about -- with the problems in the world they are worried about boundaries? My goodness gracious.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I listened with some interest this afternoon to the discussions that took place. I think, Mr. Speaker, that we’re all entitled to have a little bit of respect. We listened to the comments from over there this afternoon, and I think if they had any desire to show any degree of courtesy --

Mr. Bullbrook: I want to tell the minister I have a little bit of respect, a very little bit.

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): Throw him out.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Will the hon. member for Sarnia cease and desist from the continuous interruption?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: He told the member to be quiet.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member knows. Will the minister continue?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The hon. member for Sarnia does not have the floor. I would ask him not to try to test my patience further.

Mr. Bullbrook: You don’t have to single me out.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that very much.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): What kind of privileged human being does the minister think he is?

Mr. Sargent: Get to the point.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The hon. minister has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, let me refer to the resolutions that have been passed and were enunciated this afternoon. I refer to the county of Middlesex resolution, which means a very great deal to me. I think that it should be read into the records again, because I want it to show in Hansard.

Mr. Bullbrook: A sad commentary.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Yes, the member is a sad commentary.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: We have a resolution from the county of Middlesex which reads, and this is signed by the clerk administrator of Middlesex county, Mr. Ron Eddy --

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I’ll report it to the Victoria papers. The member is in trouble.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: It reads as follows:

“1. Agreed that the present electoral districts are satisfactory and acceptable.

“2. Opposed to the recent recommendations of the electoral boundaries commission regarding provincial electoral districts.

“3. Agreed to submit the following proposals to the commission: That there be three provincial electoral districts for the city of London; the provincial electoral district for the county of Middlesex to in- include the entire county.

“4. That the clerk be directed to forward this information to the provincial cabinet, the Ontario electoral boundaries commission and the local MLAs.”

That was supported unanimously, as I understand it, in county council. We had the same kind of a resolution from the Middlesex County Federation of Agriculture; from the village of Lucan; from the township of London; from the township of west Nissouri; the township of McGillivray; the Middlesex County Bean Growers Commodity Board which have their head offices in Middlesex county; the corporation of the town of Parkhill and several others. I have received in total almost 200 individual letters -- several of them were form letters, many of them were personal letters -- opposing the redistribution proposal.

I think it’s fair to say in regard to the resolution proposed by the county of Middlesex that the electoral districts be maintained as they have been for the last several years, that it is something that all of us would like to be able to continue, but I believe one has to be realistic enough to recognize that the population of Middlesex North is such that it simply cannot be continued when redistribution is being considered throughout the province. There have to be some changes made.

We were intrigued by the form of the first proposal of the redistribution commission when they proposed that the riding of Middlesex North, as it had been constituted rurally, would be maintained, and that certain portions of the city of London would be added to the riding to give it sufficient population for continuance. That seemed to be an acceptable proposal. However, the ridings immediately to the north of us were apparently where the problem developed. Because we are led to believe that the riding of Huron, as was mentioned this afternoon by the hon. member for Huron (Mr. Riddell) is to extend over into the south part of Perth county.

I’m led to believe, by discussions that I’ve had with people in that area and by reading the London Free Press issue of Friday, Dec. 13, that there was great consternation in Perth county regarding the loss of several townships and some towns in that particular area to the riding of Huron. Representations were made, I understand, to put Perth back together again as it had been in the past. That left the commission in the position of having to make some arrangements concerning the ridings of Huron, Huron-Bruce and Grey-Bruce, because I believe that, like Middlesex North, when one looks at the total population of those three ridings it would be difficult indeed to justify the continuance of those three ridings. As a result, recommendations were made.

I heard my hon. friend from Huron admonish my friend from Middlesex South this afternoon to get his facts straight. I would like him to recall also that it might be wise for him to get his facts straight as well. If I may indulge your time for a moment, sir, let me read from the Friday, Dec. 13 issue of the London Free Press:

“The cause of the commission’s turnaround in the area seems to be the existing riding of Huron. The riding had to be expanded to conform with provincial population goals for ridings.

“The original proposal was to include a portion of the current riding of Perth, held by Liberal Hugh Edighoffer, and the Huron riding held by Liberal Jack Riddell.

“Under that proposal the townships of Fullarton, Hibbert and Blanshard, as well as St. Marys and Mitchell, where Mr. Edighoffer lives, would have gone to Huron riding. Mr. Edighoffer and Perth county council strongly objected to that proposal.

“The only change to be made in Perth riding is the removal of Palmerston, which would be placed in a new riding to be called Wellington-Peel.

“At the same time, Mr. Riddell was approaching the commission, asking a portion of Middlesex North be placed in his riding.”

Now that is stated in the London Free Press by Mr. Pat Crowe.

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. L. C. Henderson (Lambton): They don’t want the member very badly up there.

Mr. Riddell: Point of order.

Mr. Speaker: What is the point of order?

Mr. Riddell: Despite what was written, in the paper, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read into the record the letter I received from Mr. Brian McCool on Aug. 8, and I quote --

Mr. G. Nixon: What is the point of order?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Riddell: This is a point of order.

Mr. Sargent: Go right ahead.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. There is no point of order. There is nothing out of order --

Mr. Riddell: There is a point of order. I am trying to explain --

Mr. Speaker: Well, just explain it.

Mr. G. Nixon: Get to it.

Mr. Good: It is a point of personal privilege. He has been accused.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: The member had his chance this afternoon; he explained it then.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. This is developing into a debate. What you should do is just make your statement.

Mr. Riddell: On a point of personal privilege then, Mr. Speaker, I’m being accused of something which I am certainly not responsible for.

Mr. Sargent: Right.

Mr. Riddell: The letter I received from Mr. McCool said -- and I quote:

“Further to correspondence which we have received from various interested parties with respect to the electoral district of Perth, as announced on June 8 the commissioners have been making tentative plans for a rearrangement of the boundaries. You will understand, of course, that the map which I enclose has no official status, but the commissioners would be pleased to have your comments on the sketch here provided.”

Mr. Speaker, here is the sketch which they provided me and which was the first indication that I had that they wanted to include five townships of North Middlesex in the Huron riding.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Riddell: I simply sent a letter back to Mr. McCool dated August 16:

“Dear Mr. McCool:

“I wish to acknowledge your letter of Aug. 8 regarding tentative plans of the Ontario electoral boundaries commission for rearrangement of the boundaries. Including parts of North Middlesex with Huron makes abundantly good sense in my opinion as the move closely approximates the existing federal boundary which constituents have become accustomed to; and apart from this, the townships in Middlesex North have much more in common in most respects with townships in Huron than do Perth county townships.”

Mr. R. G. Eaton (Middlesex South): That is the member’s opinion, not the townships’ opinion.

Mr. Sargent: Get with it.

Mr. Riddell: To continue:

“With Hibbert township included, it means I represent parts of three counties, (being Huron, Middlesex and Perth, which entails a much heavier workload, but I am prepared to meet the challenge. I would suggest, however, that Perth county council would like to have Hibbert stay within the boundary of the Perth constituency.

Mr. Eaton: Why didn’t the member check with Middlesex county council?

Mr. Riddell: Keep your skirts on.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Don’t take that. Hit him with your purse.

Mr. Riddell: The letter goes on:

“I would be agreeable, as that would mean that my responsibilities would rest within two counties rather than three. I wish to thank you for the opportunity to express my opinion on the matter.”

Mr. Speaker, this clearly shows that I was asked for my comments and I gave my comments. Whatever the press picked up from that is their doing and not mine.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Answer that.

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. member had a right to correct any wrong impression which might have been given. The hon. minister.

Mr. Sargent: Sure he did.

Mr. Roy: We will accept the minister’s apology now.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, naturally I am most delighted to hear that explanation from my hon. friend.

Mr. G. W. Walker (London North): That was Dec. 13.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: My hon. friend has given us some ideas here as to what his position actually was. It strikes me as being most interesting that the commission were interested enough in his riding to address a letter to him asking his opinion of what their changes might be. I find it interesting to see the commission make a recommendation which virtually decimated the riding of Middlesex North without any reference whatever to whether or not the local member or the people there were interested in it.

Mr. Sargent: The minister has done a pretty good job himself.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: However, be that as it may, I still believe --

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Let the minister read his letter.

Mr. Roy: Did he get a letter from the commission?

Mr. Haggerty: Did he submit a brief?

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: As far as we are concerned, I find it interesting to have observed in print and to have had at least several members of Huron county council tell me that the hon. member for Huron had discussion with county council concerning the proposed redistribution boundaries of Huron suggesting that I, Bill Stewart, was quite amenable to the recommendation that he has made in taking in the several townships of Middlesex North.

Let me make it categorically clear that at no time did I ever even suggest that to the hon. member for Huron or to anyone else at any time ever. And let that be known specifically.

Mr. Riddell: And at no time did --

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I hope my hon. friend will be as free with his ink in that statement as he was in stating that I was prepared to go along with that kind of a suggestion, because that is categorically wrong.

Mr. Roy: That is hearsay.

Mr. Riddell: I never made that statement.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: But my hon. friend then must find some of his Huron county councillors telling him untruths, because they are telling us that he did indeed state that very fact. What is more, when the suggestion was made --

Mr. Roy: The minister is now being petty.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: -- that Huron county might well have done the same as Perth did, that is to respect the boundaries of Huron county and when the member for Huron-Bruce was asked what his reaction would be to that, he didn’t find there was anything wrong with it.

Mr. Riddell: Point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Point of privilege.

Mr. Riddell: I never made that statement to the county council. I would invite my hon. friend to come with me to a county council meeting and we will thrash it out there.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That is the solution.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I haven’t any notion of going to Huron county council. My hon. friend was there and I have his stories. I also have the stories that appeared in the press.

Mr. Roy: Get out of the kitchen.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: As a matter of fact, one of the county councillors left the chamber and called my home immediately after he made the statement. Now he can deny it if he wishes --

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Did the minister tell him he is wrong?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Why doesn’t the minister run again? We will settle it then.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: He asked me about it right then and there.

Mr. Roy: The minister is a bit of a crybaby.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Now, Mr. Speaker, let me say this, that if there is to be any real problem here --

An hon. member: No gerrymandering.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The hon. minister will continue with the debate.

Mr. Bullbrook: The important thing in Middlesex is the boundaries. Never mind the appointment, never mind inflation, get to the most important thing.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, would the minister name the chap who phoned him?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: No, I haven’t any notion of naming the chap.

Mr. Riddell: The minister is chicken.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): The minister is misleading the House.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to name him. It is the current warden of Huron county, who went out of the room and called me directly and said, “Is it right?” And if the members want to read it, there it is right there.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Swallow that one, boys; swallow that one.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: There it is right there.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Walker: The member for Huron should retract.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Now, Mr. Speaker, I understand my friends are greatly exercised over there. But you know, Mr. Speaker, I listened all through the by-election to my friends over there, and particularly the hon. member for Huron --

Mr. Ruston: The minister is still fighting that by-election. Yes, he couldn’t take it.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, surely my hon. friends will allow me to make a presentation on a very important matter.

Mr. Bullbrook: Is he paving his whole farm? Is that true, is that rumour true? He is paving his whole farm?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I simply ask my hon. friends over there, why are they so touchy about putting the great riding of Huron together, when of course they were so interested in municipal boundaries during the by-election that they were saying this government was going to come in and force regional government on the people?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, today I am simply suggesting that the great county of Huron, which has one of the greatest diversities of agriculture in all Ontario --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: One of the best members. Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: -- be put back together as one constituency within its county boundaries, respecting the integrity of the county of Huron.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Very good.

Mr. Riddell: We are represented by a great member.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Remember, the member said it.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: We realize, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Eaton: Why is the member opposed to Huron being one riding?

Mr. Bullbrook: Will you keep that lady quiet over there?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Well, the other lady is leaving. I would suggest this, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Sargent: Why doesn’t the minister pave his barnyard again?

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): The only farmer in the Conservative Party.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: We must recognize that there will be one less rural riding as far as Middlesex is concerned.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Of course they do.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: But when one looks at the population trends in that area, Mr. Speaker, one would be concerned --

Mr. Sargent: Talk about the barnyard.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: My hon. friend from Grey-Bruce seems to be more comfortable in the barnyard than I do, so why doesn’t he go there? That’d be a good place for him to be.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Tell us about the Downtowner, in back of the Downtowner, in his barnyard, in his big barnyard.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Will the hon. members refrain from the interjections and the hon. minister continue with the debate?

Mr. Sargent: He is controversial.

Mr. Roy: He is very provocative.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I recognize the situation.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Throw him out, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: The ridings that the county of Middlesex and the Federation of Agriculture and the other municipalities support in Middlesex were enunciated by my friends from Middlesex South, London North and London South today. They result in ridings in the city of London of approximately 74,000 each. The riding of Middlesex, outside of the city limits but including the entire county, would represent 58,810. And if they have to look after population -- which obviously they needed to look after to come down into Middlesex county to take all of those townships out of it to add to Huron -- Huron put back together as one particular county riding would be 57,240, quite within the terms of reference. The riding of Grey-Bruce would be 65,680 if Bruce were to maintain its county boundaries as well.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister has this all worked out.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Surely that, to me, would be a reasonable suggestion and a very reasonable proposal --

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): The minister is trying to get rid of me.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What has the minister got against the member for Huron-Bruce?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: -- made by the people of this whole area. No, I have nothing against him whatever.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Not a thing, he is a very honourable and a very credible member.

Mr. Ruston: The minister has just left him with one less riding, that’s all.

Mr. Gaunt: I have always spoken so highly of the minister.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, indeed and I have of the member.

An hon. member: It should be the member for Huron anyway.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Well there is no difference between those two parties anyway.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I just simply say to you, Mr. Speaker, and through you to the commissioners who will read these comments in Hansard, we will recognize --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: With bated breath.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: -- that they didn’t have a very easy job to do. We simply suggest to them that they take a look now at what to me seems to be a very reasonable proposal emanating from Middlesex county, and also a proposal that I should think would be perfectly reasonable and right for the people of Huron county, many of whom have suggested to me that there’s no possible justification for maintaining those two ridings in that particular area.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Past services to the Conservative Party.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Rainy River.

Mr. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will endeavour to be a little less provocative than the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

Mr. J. M. Turner (Peterborough): Is he assuming or presuming?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Don’t worry about that.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I rise really to try and balance some of these speeches that have been made in the last two days, in regard particularly to the fact of the imbalance of population as between urban centres, particularly the cities and the rural areas. And as most members I believe have done, if I may say so, I probably speak with a certain amount of selfishness when I speak concerning the new boundaries.

As you are aware, sir, one of the guidelines of the commission was that ridings in northern Ontario would be left substantially as they were and that the number of ridings would not be reduced. I believe the NDP in particular have made the case and played the numbers game, reverting to something that, while not particularly and completely out of style, I think should not be accepted holus-bolus either by the House, or by the commission in particular, and that is that all ridings should be on an equal population basis or very nearly so, especially urban as opposed to rural.

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken many times in the House about the problems of a northern riding, particularly in the distances involved and getting around. I don’t think we want to go back in history and review the “no representation without population”; when you had to have a certain income before you were allowed to vote, and what boiled down to in the last century perhaps as “representation by population.” I would suggest to you, sir, that while this isn’t an entirely outmoded concept, surely in this day and age we can temper that with a little bit of reason.

I would like to try and balance the arguments that have been put forward, particularly as I say by the NDP, with a suggestion to the commission and to the House that service to constituents should be weighed very carefully when we consider electoral boundaries and ridings.

I think, Mr. Speaker, it’s apparent to most of the members -- although from listening to some of the debates perhaps not as obvious as it is to me -- that service to constituents is one of the things that we are here to provide primarily and it is just not possible in a riding that encompasses literally hundreds of thousands of square miles. As a matter of fact, I would like to draw upon the experience of one of the NDP members to make my point, Mr. Speaker.

The member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Stokes) services a riding of over 100,000 square miles. It is perhaps a little difficult for most southern, eastern, or western Ontario members to understand just exactly what is 100,000 square miles. Northwestern Ontario, of which the Thunder Bay riding is a large part, encompasses something like 250,000 square miles, which is over two-thirds of the land mass of the Province of Ontario. In those 250,000 square miles, we have five members of the Ontario Legislature. Two of them come from the city of Thunder Bay, which has a population of some 110,000 people approximately. Three of us -- the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier), the member for Thunder Bay and myself -- represent an area encompassing close to, I would say, 240,000 square miles of Ontario.

The member for Thunder Bay’s riding goes, if I recall correctly, from Hornpayne on the east away up to Pickle Lake on the far northwest. He doesn’t have any kind of direct south and north or east and west connections. He has to travel primarily by car on roads that do not go from point to point, but which take him, literally, hundreds of miles out of his way. He represents 25 or 30 or more communities -- all with different problems, all with people who have different needs and requirements.

My riding, sir, is slightly smaller. It’s only 17,000 square miles. I have approximately one voter per square mile. The total population is somewhat higher; but approximately one voter per square mile.

Now in a rural riding, particularly in northern Ontario, sir, our problems are a great deal different from what they are in rural Ontario or southern Ontario. Often we are the only legal aid or assistance available. We are an employment agency, we are lawyers; we are the community crying towel, if you like; we are also the community planners. We carry out many of the functions of government and act as ombudsmen, many of us do. This is because the government agencies and departments, whether municipal or provincial or federal, are just not handy to the people who live in these areas.

As an aside I’m sure you’ll find interesting, Mr. Speaker, I’m often called upon, for instance, to be a marriage counsellor.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Reid: You’re saying to yourself, Mr. Speaker, now why would anyone approach the member for Rainy River for advice on their marital problems? I must say when I began my political career I asked myself the same thing, Mr. Speaker. I started out by asking them: “I am not married; why would you come to me to solve your marital problems?” The answer, sir, was simply this: “If you’re not married, you must be a lot smarter than those of us who are. Therefore we think that you can give us some advice.”

Mr. R. F. Nixon: And that’s not Liberal policy.

Mr. Reid: However, Mr. Speaker, the problem is a serious one. In ridings the size we have in the north, we have problems servicing the people who elected us and sent us to Toronto.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Reid: In my particular case, Mr. Speaker, and you’ve heard me say this often, sir, my riding is 1,200 miles from Toronto. You’ve also heard me use the analogy that Halifax is closer to Toronto than the Rainy River riding. So not only am I called upon to service --

Mr. Roy: He must service every one of his constituents.

Mr. Reid: I’m certainly glad that woke some of these fellows up. It is difficult to provide services to the people in my riding as well as serve as a member down in Toronto.

Mr. Roy: Don’t put that in Hansard.

Mr. Reid: Before we got improved air service in my area, I would have to fly to Thunder Bay -- usually an hour and a half or two -- then drive to Fort Frances where I live, or somewhere in my constituency. This was a drive of 3½ or four hours to meet with the people I represent and to listen to their problems and then do what I could to help them.

I’d like to bring a more immediate example to your attention, Mr. Speaker. On Friday I am to be in Kenora, which is not in my riding, but where we’re holding a land-use meeting under the auspices of the Ministry of Natural Resources. Kenora is 130 miles, approximately, from the town of Fort Frances. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the highways I have to travel on are not the 401. They are not always in the best of condition; although MTC does their best, sometimes.

Mr. Ferrier: The Minister of Natural Resources doesn’t keep the roads in his riding in very good shape.

Mr. Reid: They are two-lane highways in northern Ontario. I’m sure, sir, you can understand the problems with the snow, the blizzards and the weather that prevails up there at this time of the year.

Mr. R. S. Smith (Nipissing): Stay home; it would be a waste of time.

Mr. Reid: That is in the morning. I have a meeting there, sir, Friday morning at 10 o’clock. That evening at 5 o’clock -- and there’s an hour’s difference in the time zone -- I am to be in Atikokan, which is some 90 miles east of the town of Fort Frances. When you add the distance from Kenora to Fort Frances to Atikokan, it comes to approximately 250 miles that I’m going to have to drive in the afternoon -- after having driven to Kenora in the morning to sit in on a meeting in the morning and most of the afternoon, I then drive to Atikokan. Most of these meetings are important meetings that must be attended by the local member.

So I would like to say only this, sir, to reiterate, I would hope that the commission -- either this one that has sat and presented its recommendations this time, or future ones -- will hear in mind that a large part of a member’s duties in this chamber, as ombudsman or whatever else the people who elect him require, requires that that member be available to his constituents so that he may assist them in whatever way they feel he should, and to receive their views so that he can assimilate them and demonstrate them to this Legislature, which in many cases is thousands of miles from his riding.

So again, Mr. Speaker, I hope the Legislature will take this idea of service into account and will not get overly involved in the numbers game and come down with a resolution that each riding most be exactly equal or closely equal in the number of people that that riding represents. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth North.

Mr. D. W. Ewen (Wentworth North): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to take part in this debate. At the outset, I would just like to draw to the attention of the commission that the ridings of Wentworth and Wentworth North are the bedroom communities of the city of Hamilton and in the past four or five years there has been tremendous growth in these two ridings. As a matter of fact, they are the only areas in the region of Hamilton-Wentworth that we can expand.

I realize the difficult task that the commission has had and I admire it because it is a thankless job and very, very difficult. One thing I do appreciate is that they do listen. On the first redistribution that was put out they added to Wentworth North that portion of Wentworth riding that was in the west end, from the town of Ancaster to James St. and South from Mohawk Rd. to the city limits. Adding this to Wentworth North, they added the town of Grimsby with approximately 14,000 people, to Wentworth. Unfortunately the commission didn’t realize that Grimsby was not in the new region of Hamilton-Wentworth but was part of the Niagara region and in no way did it want to come in. So it put the commission in a very difficult position of having to make a change there.

There was a very strong letter of protest from the council of Grimsby to the commission, so they reconsidered. In order to accommodate them in that region they had to form another riding and it worked out, with the riding, that they were able to get in there. In the meantime, the commission overlooked what happened to Wentworth after this. It made a much smaller riding and no consideration was given to that section of Wentworth that was put into Wentworth North.

Apparently there was a phone poll taken of 100 people at random covering that particular area, and what amazed me was the fact that the people were cognizant of the town of Grimsby being dropped out of the riding. Of the 100 people consulted and approached on this, not one of them felt that they wanted to leave the riding of Wentworth. They felt now that Grimsby wasn’t there they should stay the way they were. In a way I have to agree with them, because as I said at the outset, regarding the redistribution and the growth population in that particular section right now, although this was the 1971 census, talking to the alderman who represents that particular area, we are talking now of 20,000 voters.

In my particular area we are into the expansion. In my own town of Ancaster, sewers are being installed now and we are looking at an additional 40,000 voters in that particular town by 1980. The regional government has approved doubling the sewage capacity at the town of Dundas, and we are talking another 10,000 voters. In talking to the planners in Flamborough township, in the Waterdown area in particular, they’ve got on the planning board in the very near future an extension of the sewers in Waterdown to serve another 23,000 people. The mayor there is also talking about three hamlets of 1,000 each. What we’re really looking at now by the year 1980, in the riding of Wentworth north alone, is another 80,000 people. I wanted to get this on the record. I’ve talked to the commission on it and asked them to take another look at it. They felt that I should mention this tonight and I would appreciate it if they would reconsider the redistribution of people in the two tidings and allow those people who feel they would like to remain in Wentworth to remain there.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to make a few comments in relation to this motion on the question of redistribution. I think that possibly no member, or no riding in any event, was affected as much as my riding in the original proposal. The subsequent proposal, of course, restored the riding.

What I want to do, Mr. Speaker, is to discuss, first of all, the composition of the commission and the fact that never again should members of this Legislature form a commission of this nature without better representation. I think that’s clear. I want to pay tribute, Mr. Speaker, to the commission itself. Throughout I feel sincerely they acted in good faith. Originally, at no time did I ever accuse the commission of any intent or gerrymandering or anything of this nature. What I did accuse the commission of was a question of ignorance, that they were not aware of certain aspects of the situation in this province. I think that is not the fault of the commissioners themselves.

I think that we should not criticize, for instance, the members themselves on the commission. After all, the terms of reference were given by this Legislature and the people on the commission were people appointed by the government, so that it would be unfair to them to criticize them personally. On the other hand, I think we should keep in mind that never again should we form a commission which is so unrepresentative of this province generally.

For instance, as far as I know, Mr. Speaker, there was no one on the commission who could speak for people from the north. I appreciate that their terms of reference sort of froze the seats from the north, but the fact remains that there was no one who could be representative on the commission from the north. This is especially important when the commission did not have any public hearings so that it was difficult to get input.

I think the original recommendations are reflections of individuals who sat back with the slide rules and with certain so-called experts -- and I’m not talking about the people on the commission but some of the people who were hired by the commission -- and came down with certain decisions, which on paper appeared to make a certain amount of sense but, in fact, were splitting up communities. They had no idea whatsoever of the ethnic or geographical or even the historical backgrounds of different ridings representing different areas.

I do not criticize the commissioners or the members of the commission themselves. All I say is that I think that for all members of this House reproaches, criticisms and comments should not be partisan on this because I think we all have an interest in seeing that individuals within certain areas receive adequate representation. But the fact remains that we should never again establish a commission which, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, is so unrepresentative of this province as a whole.

I mentioned people from the north. There was no one from eastern Ontario on the commission and there are a lot of seats down there. I think it is clear from the original recommendations of the commission that the commissioners had no idea what they were doing with a riding like Ottawa East, which is the only urban riding which has a francophone majority. Once this was pointed out to the members on the commission, right away there were steps taken to correct the situation.

I found that the commissioners themselves were most sympathetic. I found that the secretary of the commission, Mr. McCool, was a gentleman that you could discuss it with. He would accept alternatives; as far as I’m concerned he was prepared to discuss with every member of this Legislature alternate proposals which would make some sense within the overall redistribution in this province.

But the fact remains that for them even to think of getting rid of a riding like Ottawa East is something that is alarming. I say, Mr. Speaker, imagine what would have occurred had it not been for the interest shown by the constituents in that area -- the interest shown by the Franco-Ontarians generally across this province.

I ask the members here to imagine, for instance, what would happen if a commission went into Quebec and went into Mount Royal, which is known as one of the English-speaking ridings, and split it up among so many neighbouring ridings. Suppose all the English-speaking people who had been in a majority situation became a minority within the French-speaking ridings in that area. Just imagine what would happen; there would be war down there. But this is, in fact, what they were suggesting here.

I’m not saying that there was any malice, or that this was done with intent, but that this was even suggested in this province, Mr. Speaker, gives you some indication that unfortunately the commission apparently did not have sufficient background, or at least did not study the provincial ridings in depth to make adequate recommendations or alternative proposals or sufficient redistributions. So this went on.

I cite Ottawa East and I’m extremely grateful, Mr. Speaker, to the members of the commission and I want to put on the record now that the reason that the changes were made was due in large measure to the overall participation of citizens in that area, of citizens generally in the Ottawa area who saw what they were doing was clearly a mistake.

But I want to say of the members of the commission, and I want to say more specifically of Mr. McCool, who co-operated with me all summer long, that they were extremely receptive and that steps were taken to alter some of these factors here. I’m told by my colleagues on both sides of the House that, in fact, the commission was prepared to discuss and McCool was an individual who was open to discuss alternative proposals.

Of course, it has been mentioned by other members that it’s going to be impossible to satisfy everyone in this House when it comes to the question of redistribution. But I do want to put on the record, Mr. Speaker, that never again should we allow a commission to be set up that, first of all, would be so unrepresentative; and second, that it would not have public hearings. I think it is important that there be public hearings when we are going to make major changes. Third, I still feel, Mr. Speaker, that the balance of rural urban ridings is not fair. I cite as an example the three ridings in the Ottawa area, which are in fact the three largest ridings in the province. I look at the ridings of --

An hon. member: Outside of Metro.

Mr. Roy: Outside of Metro Toronto and outside of the one riding in Sault Ste Marie. I look at these three ridings and note that Ottawa Centre under redistribution will have 75,000 people, Ottawa East will have 76,000 and Ottawa Rideau will have 76,000. Mr. Speaker, when you compare these three ridings, for instance, with the urban ridings of London, clearly the average population is much higher and I say to the members of the commission that I think that the Ottawa area could have used one more seat if we were to be fair. I’m not suggesting that they are not fair, but if we were to be objective and if we were to give representation which has some equilibrium across the province, I’m suggesting that in the Ottawa area we could have used one more seat, Mr. Speaker.

In closing I do want to put on the record, Mr. Speaker, the co-operation received from all citizens’ groups in my riding. I think there were some 46 alternative recommendations which were made to the commission by various groups, by the Franco-Ontarian Association, and by citizens individually. It was their interest and their enthusiasm I suggest, Mr. Speaker, which convinced the commission that it had to keep a riding -- in fact it was the oldest riding, the only urban riding which had a French-speaking majority. Right away when the problem was raised, when the issue was raised, it became clear to the commissioners that they did make a mistake and that they could not afford to let the situation rest as it had originally been proposed.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I think I should take this opportunity to say a few words in French relating to the riding of Ottawa East and reflecting the majority of the people in that riding.

Je voudrais dire simplement, M. l’Orateur, que si on a réussi à changer les comtés, si on a réussi à sauvegarder ce comté d’Ottawa Est, qui est, M. l’Orateur, le comté le plus vieux de la région qui est d’ailleurs le seul comté urbain qui a une majorité francophone. Et si on a réussi, nous, les francophones ontariens, à garder ce comté-là, c’est dû largement à l’enthousiasme et aux initiatives de tous les gens de ce comté, des associations comme l’Association Franco-Ontarienne d’Ontario, et des associations des

Je mentionnerai, M. l’Orateur, qu’immédiatement après que la proposition a été citoyens du comté.

faite au mois de septembre on au mois d’août l’année passée, la réaction des gens du comté a été immédiate, que ceux-ci n’ont pas accepté, que la réaction a été telle qu’ils ne pouvaient pas croire qu’une commission faisait de telles recommandations, qu’on enlevait aux Franco-Ontariens le seul comté urbain dans lequel ils étaient majoritaires. Alors ça a été un champ de bataille, un cri à la guerre vraiment, où les gens du comté se sont réunis, où ils ont pris des mesures pour réagir contre une telle recommandation de la commission. Et ensemble on a réussi à convaincre les membres de la commission. Et je vous ai déjà dit, M. l’Orateur, que la commission d’après moi n’était pas mesquine, que la commission n’a pas fait ça d’une façon délibérée. Mais c’était parce que la commission manquait dans son arrangement, manquait certaines représentations comme un franco-ontarien sur cette commission-là.

Mr. Reid: D’accord, d’accord.

Mr. Roy: D’accord. I think I should send him to service a few of his constituents, Mr. Speaker. In any event je disais, M. l’Orateur, avant d’être interrompu par mon collègue de Rainy River je disais tout simplement que --

Mr. Reid: Rainy River.

Mr. Roy: Rainy River. Je disais que les gens --

Mr. Speaker: For your information, just ignore the member for Rainy River because he is not in his seat.

Mr. Roy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that.

I was saying very simply, Mr. Speaker, je disais, M. l’Orateur, que clans ces circonstances-là la commission malheureusement a agi d’une façon ignorante parce qu’elle n’était pm au courant de la situation qui existe dans la région d’Ottawa. Mais d C l’initiative de tous les gens de cette communauté, de tous les Franco-Ontariens, on a réussi à convaincre la commission qu’il était nécessaire do garder Jo comté d’Ottawa Est. Et ensemble, M. l’Orateur, on a réussi à convaincre la commission que ça valait la peine de garder le seul comté Franco-Ontarien, c’est-à-dire le seul comté urbain ayant une majorité Franco-ontarienne. Et alors j’espère, M. l’Orateur, que jamais on n’aura l’occasion de voir une commission faire encore une telle erreur.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I am deeply indebted to the commission, even though I have some criticism, and I think I have been as harsh as anyone in criticizing the commission. I want to repeat this, never did I accuse the commission with intent or with malice of attempting to what was called gerrymandering. I have accused the commission of ignorance, in the sense that it did not have sufficient input before it made major decisions. But I do want to say to the members of the commission that the people in the riding of Ottawa East and Franco-Ontarians generally felt that they received adequate sympathy and adequate receptiveness from this commission.

I say in closing, Mr. Speaker, that it is impossible for this type of commission to satisfy everyone, but as far as I am concerned, as far as the riding of Ottawa East is concerned, I am deeply indebted to the commission.

An hon. member: They ought to be.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk.

Mr. J. N. Allan (Haldimand-Norfolk): Mr. Speaker, I should like to say first of all that I think this debate has been well worthwhile. I might add that I sympathize with the commission in the task that they had; it was a difficult one. I have no doubt that they undertook their responsibilities in a responsible way. Although the results are not all that we could have hoped for, I am sure that they did it with the thought that they were doing as good a job as was possible.

As a former speaker said this afternoon, the length of my remarks will not be indicative of any lack of sincerity in what I am going to say, because I am hopeful that I can keep my remarks brief enough that the commission will read them.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: They’ll read them.

Mr. Allan: I wish to state also that in some respects I cannot agree with all the remarks of all the other speakers, particularly with the remarks of the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) last evening when he emphasized particularly population figures. I lean more toward the preservation of community interests, of traditional boundaries, of endeavouring to set up constituencies wherein the people will be able to work together and will have a mutual interest. With that as a background, I shall limit my remarks to the effect of the changes on the riding of Haldimand-Norfolk.

Now, they could be divided into two changes. In the first, four municipalities were deleted from the riding of Haldimand-Norfolk -- the townships of Charlotteville, North Walsingham, South Walsingham and the village of Port Rowan. These were added to the constituency which is now Brant-Norfolk. Is it Brant-Norfolk?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s right.

Mr. Allan: Two former municipalities in the region of Haldimand-Norfolk, which previously had been in the constituency of Brant, were added to Haldimand-Norfolk. Now, as far as those two constituencies are concerned, they do have the same community interest as the town of Simcoe and the four municipalities that I have mentioned. They are very fine people.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Right.

Mr. Allan: If they were added to the constituency of Haldimand-Norfolk, I know that the present constituents of that riding would welcome them with open arms. However, I think I might just spend a moment in giving you a little of the history of that part of Norfolk county.

In 1800, Governor Simcoe named the village of Charlotteville as the capital of the London district; that is, down along Lake Erie. A few years later, in 1815 I think, he arranged to have the capital moved from Charlotteville to the village of Vittoria. That was the capital until 1825 when --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That was before the time of the present member, wasn’t it?

Mr. Allan: That was before I was the member.

Mr. J. R. Smith (Hamilton Mountain): Long before.

Mr. Allan: And then it was moved to London. The people of Norfolk county have never forgotten that theirs is an historic county and the bonds that exist between those townships, the town of Simcoe and the westerly part of the county of Haldimand, are extremely strong bonds. We have one advantage in that area; we have always got along with our neighbours very nicely. The relations are good between that part of Norfolk and the riding of Brant that has been represented by a member of the Nixon family since time immemorial, and we really haven’t objected to that very much. It has been well represented.

However, when these changes were proposed, the residents of these municipalities made representations to me which I did pass along to the commission. There were many representations by groups of citizens and by certain members of council. I place a great deal of emphasis in this instance on the community of interest that exists in this area. I think it is worthwhile.

We hear a great deal of criticism at times of elections that citizens generally do not take as much interest in elections as they should. We have always had interest in elections. These people have worked together for very, very many years and they want to continue to work together. I may say to the hon. member for Kitchener that I thought when he was speaking last night of the proposals that were made by an individual who was entirely independent in his thinking, I should think -- Mr. Barclay, was it? --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Allan: -- that Mr. Barclay decided, thinking independently, that the riding that I suggested to the commission might be maintained, and which wasn’t, was a reasonable solution to the situation. I quite agree with Mr. Barclay. I thought the member’s report of what he had decided upon was an excellent one and showed a good deal of thought.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit to you now that the situation I have outlined does conform to the terms of reference, and these have been read today before: “That, for the purpose of the distribution the commission shall take into account community or diversity of interests” -- this is the first item and I would think one of the most important -- “means of communication, topographical features, population trends, the varying conditions and requirements regarding representation as between urban and rural electoral districts” and so on. In this connection, I may say that the mix in this particular riding is satisfactory. I support the leaving of the lines as they were, with or without the addition of the former township of Townsend and the village of Waterford.

In my view -- and I speak for the constituents, I do not speak for myself; I speak for the constituents who have made representations to me in this connection -- the riding of Haldimand-Norfolk as it did exist is reasonable so far as population is concerned and it does fulfil the terms of reference as set out in the motion. With this in mind, I hope that the commission will reconsider the proposal and that it will do as we have requested. As the present member for Brant (Mr. R. F. Nixon) has suggested, that is a reasonable solution to the situation. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sandwich-Riverside, followed by the hon. member for Waterloo North and then the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Beckett).

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, Windsor has now been divided into three equal, easily described and neat ridings, which could be called Windsor West, Windsor Central and Windsor East, but which would much better be called Windsor-Sandwich, Windsor-Walkerville and Windsor-Riverside. It might seem that there is nothing to be said, therefore, except to congratulate the commission. However, I should like to make a few comments.

I am speaking on this resolution rather than on the previous resolution because I wish to draw attention primarily to just one guideline or criterion set down for the commission and largely ignored in the city of Windsor, namely guideline (g), that “the commission shall take into account [among other things], the existing and traditional boundaries of electoral districts.”

Inasmuch as the provincial riding boundaries have changed so often in the Windsor area, there are really no such things as traditional boundaries. Therefore, for practical purposes the commission was instructed by the Legislature on Dec. 5, 1973, to take into account existing boundaries; that is, the boundaries of the present ridings, where feasible. This guideline was ignored in Windsor as far as the two proposed ridings of Windsor-Walkerville and Windsor-Riverside are concerned.

The present member for Windsor-Walkerville for many years, about 15 or so, has represented wards 1, 2 and 3 and a slice of ward 4. Since 1967 the part of Windsor that I have represented comprises wards 6 and 7 and a section of ward 8. If the commission had followed its instructions to try to maintain the present ridings, Windsor-Riverside would consist of the same area that I have represented inside the city of Windsor for the past 7½ years, namely wards 6, 7 and a slice of 8. And Windsor-Walkerville would consist, as before, of wards 1, 2, 3 and part of 4. The populations of these two ridings would be approximately equal; if not today, certainly in a very short time. Nevertheless, the commission switched ward 1 from Windsor-Walkerville to Windsor-Riverside in exchange for a large part of ward 7, and the 10 or 12 polls in ward 8, which had been in the riding that I represented.

In failing to maintain the integrity of the riding of Windsor-Walkerville and what is to become Windsor-Riverside, the commission also ignored the Legislature’s instructions that the commission shall take into account (d) population trends ... and (f) existing boundaries of municipalities or wards.”

In establishing the new ridings of Windsor-Walkerville and Windsor-Riverside, the commission actually ignored three guidelines it was told to follow. As far as these two ridings are concerned, the commission or its experts, its consultants or its staff simply disobeyed the instructions given by the Legislature. I am drawing the attention of the Legislature to this ignoring or disobeying of its instructions.

It may be that the commission was unaware of the population trends in wards 6 and 7. Almost anyone in Windsor could have informed the commission had he been asked, that these two wards are the areas in which the population explosion is taking place. For your convenience, Mr. Speaker, let us assume that after the next election the present member of the present Windsor-Walkerville is re-elected to represent the new Windsor-Riverside. Should this be the case, the citizens of ward 1, whom the member has represented for about 15 years, or 16 years --

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Eight years. That was added in 1967.

Mr. Burr: Ward 1?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Don’t fight, fellows.

Mr. Burr: Thank you for the correction. Should this be the case, the citizens of ward 1, whom he has represented for the past 7½ years, would become my constituents and the citizens of ward 7, who live west of the Chesapeake and Ohio railway, whom I have represented since October, 1967, would become his constituents. About 10 polls in ward 8 would similarly pass from my constituency to his.

It may be said that this does not inconvenience anyone and that little harm is done. This may be so, although it would mean that each MPP would have to take over from the other many cases that are partially solved, for example, Workmen’s Compensation Board cases. Those constituents who have frequent problems, and all members have the chronic problem, will have to readjust to their new member and relate their whole case histories all over again. The point I am making, however, is that the commission ignored the guideline that it was given, that is, criterion (g), and for no apparent reason and to the advantage apparently of nobody in particular.

I should like to recommend to the commission that these areas be switched back in line with the Legislature’s instructions. Actually I have no strong feelings on this matter, but if criterion (g), that is, that present ridings be changed as little as possible, is a valid one, it should be followed, unless there are other more important considerations. As I have said, Mr. Speaker, I have no strong feelings on this matter personally, but I can think of many of my constituents who will now have to be serviced by a different member who will have to spend many, many hours becoming acquainted with their individual case histories and the circumstances peculiar to themselves. Of course, if Windsor-Walkerville and Windsor-Riverside do not re-elect us, then all of our constituents will have new members who will have to become familiar with their problems. In that case, there is no continuity of membership and the principle of maintaining present riding areas loses its validity.

One criterion that any electoral boundaries commission should disregard in a redistribution is the location of the residence of incumbent members. As far as our area is concerned, the commission certainly ignored the location of the residences of the sitting members. In my case, it so happens that in the first map issued in June my residence was included in Windsor West. According to the second map, my home has been included in Windsor-Walkerville, and if the commission had followed the criterion of maintaining existing ridings then it would have been in Windsor-Riverside.

These remarks, Mr. Speaker, are made in the hope that they will be of some small help to a future Legislature and a future commission. In short, first, the consideration of population trends, if a valid criterion; second, the maintaining of riding boundaries, if a valid criterion; and, third, the maintaining of ward boundaries, if a valid criterion, should be observed more carefully by future commissions. If not valid, they should be left out of the instructions by future Legislatures. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Waterloo North.

Mr. Good: Mr. Speaker, I think it is obvious to all that if there were no shifting populations and if there were no increases in population, redistribution would not be necessary. Because of the latter, Waterloo county, now Waterloo region, was one of the fastest growing areas in the province. It was obvious that some adjustment had to be made to the existing constituency boundaries in Waterloo region.

Traditionally, Waterloo county had been served by two ridings, Waterloo South and Waterloo North. In the 1966 redistribution this had to be changed to three ridings because of the increase in population. With that distribution, which is presently in effect, it was found that the member for Kitchener and myself were representing two ridings which were among the largest 12 of the 117 in the province. It became quite obvious to everyone in the Waterloo region that, because of the tremendous population growths, there would have to be some adjustments and we thought the natural thing would be an additional riding.

However, the commission in its first report had seen fit to take four of the seven area governments in Waterloo region and distribute them among three other ridings which went almost from Lake Erie up to Georgian Bay. The regional government, the area governments, and the sitting members, along with the Chambers of Commerce, made representation to the commission and explained the necessity of retaining a community of interest within the region. Instead of giving away four area governments the logical solution would be to add an additional fourth riding.

Fortunately, the preliminary plan had used up only 123 of the allotted 125 seats, so along with an additional riding in the Niagara region, the 125th riding was added in the Waterloo region, so that now we have four ridings divided along the area government boundaries which, Mr. Speaker, is a most satisfactory solution to the problem which did exist before concerning the size of our rulings.

There are just two things, Mr. Speaker, that I would ask the commission to consider. These matters have to do with the names of the ridings. Certainly Waterloo South riding will now be known as Cambridge, which represents the majority of that particular area of the region.

Regarding the present riding of Waterloo North -- while it will be considerably reduced in size and become more manageable, the proposal is that the name be changed to Waterloo. Using the name “Waterloo” would be representative of the city of Waterloo, but would ignore the fact that the two northern townships of the region, Wellesley and Woolwich, would be part of that riding. So I would ask that the commission give consideration to retaining the present historical name of Waterloo North for the riding, which will consist of the city of Waterloo and the two northern townships within the region.

The other suggestion was made that recognition be given to the township of Wilmot which is joining part of the city of Kitchener under this redistribution. That riding could very well be called Kitchener-Wilmot rather than Kitchener South.

These two comments, Mr. Speaker, are my contribution to this debate.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Durham.

Mr. A. Carruthers (Durham): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the opportunity of participating in this discussion. It would seem to me, after all these speeches, that the impression is that the commission didn’t do a very satisfactory job.

Mr. Ferrier: What else is new?

Mr. Carruthers: I wish to differ to a degree. While I have a couple of points which I wish to raise, I do wish to express my appreciation to the commission for at least complying with one of my recommendations, and that was to have the township of Cavan transferred from the township of Victoria to the township of Peterborough, where it is municipally and where logically it should be placed.

I do wish to point out, Mr. Speaker, that a great number of changes have taken place in what were the historic two ridings of Northumberland and Durham, which have been twin counties for over 100 years. Their ties were broken as a result of the restructuring of government with the development of the new regional boundaries. I have to admit that the boundaries of the new riding of East Durham are based logically on the boundaries of the new region. Had the original proposal of the government been followed to include the eastern portion of Durham county in the region, then no doubt the present riding of Durham would have been maintained.

It also happens that we have had a restructuring of the county on a municipal basis, with the town of Port Hope and the township of Hope going into the county of Northumberland, the township of Cavan to the county of Peterborough, the township of Manvers to the county of Victoria and now the township of Cartwright to the township of Scugog, which will now become part of the new riding of North Durham.

I was speaking to a number of people and I tried to explain the changes that have taken place. They said, “Forget about it. It is so confusing we just can’t understand it.” It is confusing, and it is always true that people do resent change. There has been a degree of resistance to change in that area, I think perhaps to a major extent because of the long, traditional ties and historical ties which have been maintained over the years.

I have to admit, Mr. Speaker, that the town of Port Hope and the township of Hope logically belong in the riding of Northumberland now. Because of the changes that have taken place, Port Hope is oriented to Cobourg and Cobourg to Port Hope. The same applies in the north. Because of the physical features of the area, the township of Cavan is oriented to the city of Peterborough and the township of Manvers is oriented to the town of Lindsay and to Victoria county. Similarly the township of Cartwright is oriented to the west to Port Perry and to Oshawa.

The one problem that I see that is developing, and it has been mentioned here this evening, is the fact that in the new riding of East Durham the population will be concentrated to a major degree to the western part of the riding and will create an imbalance of population among the city of Oshawa, the town of Bowmanville, the former township of Darlington and the township of Clarke, which is largely a rural area and should be maintained largely as a rural area throughout the years. The whole objective of regional government in the area was to maintain that greenbelt. That has been lost, and I regret it.

It does mean that I’ve had to reconsider my position as a member because I live at least seven to eight miles east of the eastern boundaries of the new riding of East Durham. With the major population concentrated at the west end, with some 34,000 people from the northeast portion of Oshawa added to the riding, then for the sake of the riding in order to provide a service to the people of that riding a member should be located or resident in that part of the riding. Therefore, to do justice to the riding, I’ve had to reconsider my position. I feel that the member should come from that part of the riding. I have no doubt he will.

I do wish to emphasize those two things. I regret very much that the historic boundaries have had to be realigned. I regret that the population will be concentrated in the western part of the riding. This will create problems in days ahead. Because of Oshawa with 34,000 people added from that city -- fine people -- the town of Bowmanville, which has grown now from 8,000 and is heading for 15,000, and the township of Darlington with over 10,000 people, that’s where the population is. I’m approximately 30 miles away from it as a member, which makes it very difficult as far as I’m concerned personally.

But that is not the real problem; that is not our concern. The concern is that the riding be properly represented in the days ahead. And I want to make sure that that is the case.

Mr. Ferrier: Isn’t he going to run again?

Mr. Good: The people will decide that.

Mr. Carruthers: Yes, the people will decide it all right, no question about that. I’ll do my best to see that they decide it in the proper manner --

Mr. Roy: Yes, elect a Liberal.

Mr. Carruthers: -- so that we can ensure for them a good future, both politically and economically, because they do live in one of the finest parts of the Province of Ontario.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Couldn’t be better.

Mr. Roy: It will get better after we run --

Mr. Carruthers: I just cannot agree on public hearings. It’s very obvious to me, and I’m sure to all the members, that to have public hearings for this type of a redistribution is completely out of the question. Just imagine if we had a public hearing in Oshawa and another public hearing in Bowmanville in the eastern part of the riding. There would be so much controversy and so much confusion that the members of that commission would just throw up their hands and resign. It is just impossible.

Mr. Ferrier: Is he trying to pour oil on troubled waters?

Mr. Carruthers: Certainly the people of the area have a right to express their opinions and make representation. And they do that through their member. They do it through their municipal councils. But to call public meetings -- you know I’m getting just a little bit tired of participatory democracy.

Mr. Bullbrook: Is he?

Mr. Carruthers: Yes, I can see how much it’s abused.

Mr. Ferrier: He was the chairman of two select committees, now he is getting tired of it.

Mr. Carruthers: No, that’s not the same thing at all. We do appreciate representation from the public, but when you call public meetings, you will have a group who have one objective in mind when they come to that meeting. They’ll get the publicity and they’ll make their point. They’ll put their point forward in very strong terms. The vast majority of the people don’t -- perhaps it’s because of indifference. But after all, they are a thinking group, just as much as the group who attend those meetings. So, I say that any consideration of a public hearing is just out of the question.

It has been mentioned many times here this evening that there is a great difference between representing an urban riding and a rural riding. I know it well, and the nearer you are to the seat of government, the more difficult it becomes. If there was an occasion in Port Hope tonight, they’d expect me to be there because I am within commuting distance of that town.

Mr. Roy: He should be, yes.

Mr. Carruthers: Right -- but this is so true. I find it very difficult to perform my legislative duties as a legislator of this province and at the same time to serve the people as they should be served. The problems of government are becoming more complex; I think we all appreciate that.

Mr. Ferrier: The government shouldn’t have so many problems.

Mr. Carruthers: The problems are becoming more complex; it’s becoming more difficult. The member for Cochrane South doesn’t need to worry. He is a long distance from his riding. He communicates by telephone or by letter. He doesn’t have that same problem. But if he lived within 60 miles of the city of Toronto he would be expected to be at all the functions and make representation.

Those are my few remarks, Mr. Speaker, and again I have to admit that I can’t put forward too strong an argument. But I do say this: If we are going to reconsider the ridings for which representation was made here this evening, then I suggest to the commission and request the commission to give further consideration to that very historic riding of Durham.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York-Forest Hill.

Hon. R. Welch (Minister of Culture and Recreation): What is the name of that riding?

Mr. P. G. Givens (York-Forest Hill): That’s right -- what is the name of that riding?

Mr. Speaker, so many nice things have been said about the commission that I hesitate to introduce this dissident note. It has been said that the commission is impartial and unpolitical and acted with integrity and that they acted in accordance with the structures and the guidelines that were set up for them by the Legislature. But I am afraid that in my case the commission took the strictures and the guidelines that were laid down for them and they just threw them away and they made a special project of me and my riding.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Those guidelines were given to the member.

Mr. Givens: My guidelines, Mr. Speaker, through you to the new Attorney General --

Mr. Roy: No, the old one.

Mr. Givens: You know I have so much trouble keeping track of where he pops up in his various --

Mr. Breithaupt: Like a shooting gallery.

Mr. Roy: What is it, eight in eight years?

Mr. Givens: What is it, his eighth job this year?

Hon. Mr. Welch: When the wastepaper basket gets full --

Mr. Givens: But I like the minister. I want him to hear this. As a man of justice, I want him to hear my plea and to tell me whether he thinks justice was done in this case.

Take these guidelines where the commission was supposed to follow the strictures of existing and traditional boundaries -- they were supposed to abide by the concept of community of interest and the identity of a community and ethnic homogeneity. In the case of my riding, in the case of York-Forest Hill, they took these guidelines and they complete threw them by the board. They took the riding and they split it in three. And they scattered it to the four winds.

The Premier (Mr. Davis) has come to the defence of the commission and has said that there was no gerrymandering; they didn’t act out of malevolence; they didn’t act out of political motivation. Well, they might just as well have acted out of political motivation for what resulted as far as the redistribution of my riding is concerned. Because if you are to have Phil Givens to kick around in this chamber any more, you are not going to have him from York-Forest Hill or any part thereof. I am simply going to have to find myself a new riding somewhere so that I can come back here so that you can have Phil Givens --

Mr. Roy: And that we’ll do.

Mr. Reid: How about Brampton?

Mr. Givens: They went ahead and they forgot about this business of existing and traditional boundaries. The village of Forest Hill has been a political entity for many many years, going back as you will remember to Fred Gardiner, the noted Conservative who was the first chairman of the Metropolitan corporation. He was one of the first reeves of the village of Forest Hill. It had an identity. It had a community of interest. And they took it and they split it in two. And they took the lower village which centres around Upper Canada College -- to the west thereof, to the north thereof -- which was substantially middle class, and in many respects even aristocratic, and they piled it on top, like a 20-storey building and they put it into the riding of the hon. member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) --

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Made him safe, that’s all.

Mr. Givens: -- and they made it good and safe for him -- if there was ever a guy who didn’t need a safe riding. They made it safe for the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development. They made it real safe for him. At the same time this isn’t gerrymandering. They piled this thing on top of him like the Bank of Commerce building, but out of the middle of the structure, they removed the Annex district.

Mr. C. E. McIlveen (Oshawa): The member is going to have to go back to Trudeau.

Mr. Givens: The member for St. David (Mrs. Scrivener) will know what I am talking about there. From Avenue Rd. over to Spadina and from Bloor St. up to the railway, up to Davenport. If you turn it upside down, it’s like a camel’s hump and they removed that whole side. Look at this. I can’t show this to the Hansard reporter. They piled the lower village from my riding on top of his riding here and it took this whole section out of the side from here. Now, if this isn’t called camel-back gerrymaking, I would like to know what is.

Mr. McIlveen: Back to Trudeau for him.

Mr. Givens: And this is an independent commission. What has the aristocratic lower half of the village of Forest Hill, which they took away from me in common with the polyglot ethnic composition of the lower part of St. Andrews-St. George, and the part in which the hon. member for Ottawa Centre lives -- the Island? The community of interest that that part of the lower village has with the part where Mr. Cassidy lives, I’ll never understand.

Mr. Young: Not any more.

Mr. Givens: I beg your pardon?

Mr. Young: Not any more.

Mr. Givens: So he lived there before.

Mr. Roy: Where is he living now?

Mr. Givens: But what community of interest this lower part of Forest Hill village has with the lower part of St. Andrews-St. George, I will never understand.

Then they took the upper village which again is middle class, professional, business and they shoved it sideways, easterly into the riding of Eglinton -- the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Reilly) isn’t here at the moment -- and what connection, what ethnic identity and whatever community of interest the upper part of Forest Hill village had with the riding of Eglinton, I will never understand. If they had taken the whole of Forest Hill village and said: “Okay, this has a community of interest. It has existing traditional boundaries and identity of interest,” and coupled it with other parts of the city -- and said: “It now belongs to the city of Toronto so it has to be a city riding” -- if they had coupled that with parts of Eglinton riding and parts of St. George and parts of St. David and said: “This is a new city riding,” that I could understand. But to split it in three and scatter it to the four winds and say that in that way they have given it an identity of interest, then I don’t understand.

Then they took what was left to the west, the portion of Cedarvale and York township, and they combined it with the portion that belongs to the hon. member for York South and they now call that Oakwood. And that part of the riding which now remains in that area which will be called Oakwood has changed completely in complexion, in its nature, ethnically, sociologically, politically, socially and in every other way. It completely changed the demography of the whole area, and they call this good redistribution.

I don’t understand how they were functioning. If they were supposed to be functioning along the lines of existing and traditional boundaries then I don’t know how they did it. When I complained about it before, people said: “Well, you are talking like a crybaby. After all, you are popular. You are the former mayor of Toronto. You can run anywhere and get elected,” and maybe that’s true. It remains to be seen. I will have to find myself a new riding and start from scratch all over again.

Of course, the redistribution over the whole province wasn’t clone just to please me. It was done to please the vast majority of people and to please the Legislature, and I suppose if the vast majority of members here in the Legislature are happy, then this is the thing that has to be accomplished. But I stand here, Mr. Speaker, with a very, very sad heart, because it simply means that after a career of 25 years in public life I simply have to start from scratch all over again and I am not very happy about it.

I think I have achieved one distinction over 25 years -- and I think that and 20 cents entitles me to a cup of coffee -- and that is that I think I am the only Canadian who can say that I have been the mayor of a big city who has served at all four levels of government. I suppose I can pass that on as some kind of legacy to my children -- if I don’t get caught in some kind of land deal sooner or later -- as a legacy of honour, namely that I was the mayor of a big city, having been an alderman, a controller and a mayor, that I participated in the metropolitan experiment -- which is no longer an experiment but a fact of life -- right up to the executive level, having been a member of the federal government, having had my differences with the Prime Minister there and now serving in the provincial Legislature. So I suppose I can look back on a career with some excitement and some adventure and some pleasure. I would like to continue to stay here but they have left me with no alternative and I have no riding at this point in time.

Mr. McIlveen: Bye, bye.

Mr. Givens: Well, don’t say goodbye yet. The way those guys are operating now, we on this side have a pretty good chance of coming back in large numbers. And we will be back.

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): Au revoir.

Mr. Roy: Don’t count your luck; he will go and get the member’s seat.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Givens: I just thought I would say my piece. I tell you quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, before sitting down, that I am disappointed in what the commission has done with respect to the riding of York-Forest Hill, because from the letters I received from my constituents they feel let down. They feel that the identity and the integrity of their area was not maintained. They feel that they have an ethos and that they have a community of interest which was not maintained. They feel that they were sold down the river. They feel that they’ve been scattered to the four winds. All that has been done, as far as they’re concerned is that they’ve been scattered all over the place. They’ve lost the identity that they had for over a century; that is completely gone. It is too bad that it had to be done in this way, because that identity could have been preserved; but it wasn’t preserved.

We tried, by communications and in other ways, to indicate to them that this was a mistake; but apparently the pressures that were exerted on them were of a nature that they felt they had to do this. Unfortunately, I find myself in the position today where York-Forest Hill is no longer there, the village of Forest Hill has gone and this community of interest has gone. Perhaps, in the long run, it will be for the greater interests that this was done. I don’t know; I don’t think so. But it’s a sad day for me to have to get up today, on behalf of the old riding of York-Forest Hill, to kiss you all goodbye and say thank you very much, it was nice knowing you as a representative of York-Forest Hill.

Mr. Speaker: May I state that the hon. members for Peel South, York Mills and Hamilton Mountain will speak in that order.

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to join in this discussion from the standpoint of those in the southern part of Peel county.

I think we would express general satisfaction with the work the commission has done. There’s just no question that it is a tough job because, after receiving their first report, we went over figures and boundaries and lines and moved them north, south, east and west and variations thereof, and it stood most of the tests.

The fact is that there are in the order of more than 200,000 people -- perhaps closer to a quarter of a million -- residing there now. So change, as much as it tugs one’s heart a bit, is inevitable. The change in Peel is perhaps the most major feature of the whole proposal. We go from two ridings to four, or 4½ if we count the Albion and Caledon areas, which are proposed and designated to go with Peel-Dufferin-Wellington.

An hon. member: They’ll have great members, though.

Mr. Kennedy: Yes, they’ll have great members. Apart from that, though, there are four distinct new ridings where there were two. Now, I would commend the commissioners insofar as our area is concerned. I know it was a difficult assignment, and we think they did a good job. But we made representations on two counts.

One was because in the original division there was a line along the Queen Elizabeth Way from west to east that came almost to Etobicoke and then, for some undiscernible reason, jogged down a street known as Ogden Ave. to the CNR tracks and then east to the Etobicoke River. This line divided a historical community of interest. Both sides of Ogden were served by the same school and had the same sports programmes.

It just didn’t seem reasonable, so we met with a couple of ratepayer groups; in fact, there were representatives from several ratepayer groups, South Applewood, Vic Mattiussi and Gary Smith from Orchard Heights and several others. They agreed that there was no understanding of it. My own association felt the same way. We presented a brief, including that portion of the report, and we made the suggestion that they run the line right down the Queen Elizabeth Way and put everything south of that into a riding which was designated then as Mississauga South.

The second change was somewhat similar. Along Burnhamthorpe Rd. was the north boundary of what was designated Mississauga East; but north of Burnhamthorpe Rd. is a developing North Dixie part that joins in with the Glen Forest area, and certainly there is and will be, as it develops, a community of interest there. The current Peel boundary is Eglinton Ave. North of Eglinton Ave. it is industrial and there is Highway 401 and into the airport. So there is either industry or open country. It seemed a good idea that this line be moved north. Those two suggestions were put forward to the commission as we had opportunity to do.

A second suggestion which was made was that Highway 10 north might be a better boundary because the remaining riding in Mississauga extended from north of the Queen Elizabeth, west of Highway 10, Sheridan Homelands, and sections east as far as Highway 10, north through Erin Mills, Streetsville, and circled around and took in Malton. There seemed to be quite a disparity of interest in that setup, but the fact is that other than Sheridan Homelands and the portion south of Dundas highway, this is part of the existing Peel North.

When one took those figures and examined them it didn’t seem to be warranted that that change could be made at this time because Malton has a population of some 30,000. It appeared to us that it lent itself not to further division now but subsequently. It set a good base for a division line of perhaps Highway 10 east-west, and possibly in future a line through Meadowvale or south on Eglinton. This would fall into place the next time around.

Mr. Speaker, the commission accepted the two relatively minor but yet important representations and suggestions we made. On that basis, we are happy, knowing that in the future there obviously will be further change. The population projections for all of Mississauga show upward of 700,000 or 750,000. If technology and communications don’t change the numbers we now work with, we could have six or eight or even 10 ridings within the confines of Mississauga.

I regret the loss of Peel, which has 108 years of history, tradition and an identity that I think is known, and I hope known favourably, throughout Ontario. The Peel name will be perpetuated as the region is named Peel. Perhaps the portion in the Caledon area in the north -- Caledon, Albion and Bolton -- if the proposal goes forth in that area, that it be incorporated with Dufferin-Wellington, could incorporate and retain that as an entity here in the Legislature. I don’t know.

I say I have certain regrets. I regret leaving some very fine people. I guess it really isn’t leaving them because I would like them all to think with the rapport that has been established that my interest can’t help but be the same for them and, in fact, for people across Ontario, because even though we draw lines here and there and have designated areas, we still are known as their representatives in the Legislature. There is a certain sentimentality and I have an appreciation for the member for York-Forest Hill. I don’t know how far back that riding goes but I think it touches each of us.

My purpose tonight in speaking briefly is to record that the commission did accept very seriously and genuinely our relatively minor but important changes, insofar as we think, about maintaining community interest. The only part that didn’t receive commission attention was the suggestion that we might do something in what is now proposed as Mississauga North but, as I say, I believe that can be appropriately dealt with in the next redistribution. Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to have had an opportunity to put these few remarks on the record.

Mr. Lawlor: In the year 2000.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York Mills.

Mr. D. A. Bales (York Mills): Mr. Speaker, when there are 117 members in the House we’re all experts as to how to redistribute our own ridings, so I had great sympathy with the commission as they undertook their difficult task. I don’t know them all personally, but nevertheless I think they’ve done a good job, taking into account the difficult task they had before them.

Last evening the member for York South attributed to the riding of York Mills 130,000 people according to the 1971 census. He was pretty accurate, actually; in fact, the figure I’ve been given is 166,728. Obviously the riding I represent, York Mills, should be redistributed. Perhaps I would do it a little differently than they have proposed, and I’ve made representations to them, but I think their second proposal is vastly improved over the first one. Nevertheless, there’s still room for change.

The provincial riding of York Mills was a part of the provincial riding of York East since Confederation; and the traditional western boundary of that riding, which originally extended from Yonge St. to the Pickering town line, has been Yonge St. By and large, that has been maintained for the new riding of York Mills, and I’m grateful for that. I don’t think we should hold to specific boundaries for any particular purpose; the main thing is that the people within those areas should be properly served in this Legislature.

I have represented the riding of York Mills since it was created prior to the 1963 election, and I have seen the voting population increase from 44,000 in 1963 to 69,000 in 1967 to just about 100,000 voters in 1971; and while the census population in 1971 was 166,000, I think there is very close to 190,000 people within that riding today.

It is now to be divided into two entirely new ridings, one maintaining the name of York Mills and the other proposed to be named Oriole, of which I greatly approve. Both ridings have approximately 75,000 people, according to the 1971 census figures, although the riding of York Mills actually has added a substantial number since that time.

In the period between 1963 and 1975 the character of the area has changed substantially. It was largely a rural farming area in the 1950s; then, of course, due to the spread of Metropolitan Toronto into that section it has now become almost entirely urban.

As for the naming of the ridings, the commission initially proposed that the easterly riding be called Fairview. There is nothing wrong with that name, I suppose. There’s a large shopping centre within that particular area, but personally I do not concur in naming constituencies for shopping centres.

Mr. Reid: Right.

Mr. Bales: The name Oriole has historic and actual validity in that area. It is the community centred along the east branch of the river Don, which flows through that particular riding. In the centre-south part they have allocated an area with a population of about 7,500 to the riding of Don Mills; and that is a wise move, because the part allocated is two of the quadrants of the original community of Don Mills begun in the 1950s.

My only real regret in the present proposal for redistribution is the northwest corner of the present York Mills riding; the old area of Newtonbrook, with a population, I see, of about 8,700, has been allocated to the riding of Armourdale. I’m sure that the member for Armourdale (Mr. Carton) will care for those people as I have endeavoured to, but nevertheless there have been many very close connections between that Newtonbrook section and my own family through a long period of time.

In not any boastful way, I’m one of those very fortunate people in that I and my forebears have lived in this particular riding throughout the last 100 years. You come to know its people, its history, its background; you see it develop; and for that reason I have very close connections with it. I regret to see it being divided in any way at all, but nevertheless, for the better service to the people of that community, I think it is wise that it should be redistributed at this time.

I would say that during the last three or four years, and particularly when I served in the cabinet, I could not have served the vast number of people in the constituency without the assistance of my constituency office maintained there, helping me handle a great deal of the work within that area. They are fine people, all of them. They have been most loyal to me throughout my tenure over the last 12 years, and I hope that in the future I shall be able to serve them as well as in the past.

So, Mr. Speaker, I simply conclude by saying that the commission had a difficult task and it’s perfectly natural that they would not satisfy all of us, or even any of us, but nevertheless I think they have done their job well and they should be commended for it. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: So that the members will know the list of speakers, I have six on the list: The member for Hamilton Mountain, the member for Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve), the member for Grey South (Mr. Winkler), the member for Essex-Kent (Mr. Ruston), the member for Wellington South (Mr. Worton) and the member for Huron-Bruce. We will now have the member for Hamilton Mountain.

Mr. J. R. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to commend the hon. members of the redistribution commission for the manner in which they have dealt with the two reports as regards the city of Hamilton and the county of Wentworth. I was certainly very pleased to see that on both reports the commissioners have recommended that the present constituency of Hamilton Mountain’s geographical boundaries remained intact.

I think this is very wise, inasmuch as the original community of Hamilton Mountain grew up along the brow area of the city nearest to the Wentworth St. incline and the upper James St. railway incline. It subsequently has spread out farther to the south, to Mohawk Rd. The residential community is compact and almost totally developed, with a strong sense of community interests.

Mr. Speaker, in the original report of the commission it was recommended that the town of Grimsby, in the county of Lincoln, be put in with the riding of Wentworth. I’m very pleased to see that that matter has been changed and now the riding of Wentworth is strictly what it says, comprising the area of Winona, Stoney Creek, Saltfleet and that area of the city of Hamilton south of Mohawk Rd. and Mount Hope.

Indeed, perhaps at the next redistribution there could well be a new seat which would be called South Mount -- that area south of Mohawk Rd. and the Wentworth-Haldimand county line. This is the area that is rapidly being developed with homes and other forms of development.

Similarly, the Saltfleet satellite city to the south will some day create a tremendous increase in population in the riding of Wentworth. I can envisage a new constituency in the next 10 years in this very fast-growing region.

Mr. Speaker, with the removal of Grimsby from the riding of Wentworth, that particular seat is now the smallest numerically by voters of the Hamilton-Wentworth seats.

I would hope that the members of the commission will review the figures and the proposals as set forth by my hon. colleague, the member for Wentworth North. The member suggested that Wentworth North was already a compact and manageable riding. I think it would be well to leave that area south of Mohawk Rd. and west of upper James St. in the riding of Wentworth.

As I mentioned, some day that area could very ideally comprise a new riding known as South Mount, with Hamilton Mountain to the north. This is a growing area and I also see it some day as a new ward for the city of Hamilton and its political boundaries. The Mountain already has three wards; but the area south of Mohawk is really a new community, not bearing too much connection with that to the north.

And so I feel that those 20,000 electors should really be left with the riding of Wentworth so that some day they could very easily form a new constituency with the other areas of the city of Hamilton lying south of Mohawk.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a great deal of interest in this whole debate. I was particularly interested in the remarks of several of the members from northern Ontario. Although I am a southerner, I have a great deal of appreciation for the difficulties that the northern members must have in trying to cover their vast geographical areas.

I was rather disappointed that the redistribution of the northern seats was not included. One thing I would like to see some day in this province is a community of interest for our native people, particularly those living in the northwestern part of the province -- that vast area known as the northern Ontario wilderness from James Bay west to the Manitoba border. Some day that perhaps might form its own constituency in which the native people would have the majority population.

Just as the hon. member for Ottawa East is very adamant and keen to see that Franco-Ontarions maintain their constituencies, that one geographic area and its substantial native population might some day also have an opportunity to be represented here.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Halton West.

Hon. G. A. Kerr (Solicitor General): Mr. Speaker, I won’t be too long. However, I would like to start off, as the other hon. members have done, and compliment the commission and the efforts of the three gentlemen who made up the commission: Mr. Justice Campbell Grant, Roderick Lewis and J. Robert Sampson. They have, after much agonizing and hard work, I’m sure, produced a report that seems acceptable for the most part to the majority of the members of this House.

Halton county, Mr. Speaker, now the regional municipality of Halton -- that great success story of municipal reform and restructuring--has, as the hon. members know, two provincial ridings, Halton East and Halton West. The two ridings were established in the 1967 election and were pretty well evenly divided, particularly on a population basis, although Halton West has a bit more land area. Halton West includes all of the town of Burlington, the township of Nassagaweya, the town of Acton and the northern part of Esquesing. The balance of the county made up the riding of Halton East, and that includes that tiny principality of Hornby which, as the hon. members know, has some of the finest agricultural land in the province.

The present population of the region is about 210,000 and the commission proposes that there be an additional riding added to the region; that there be, in fact, three new ridings, which will be named Burlington, Halton and Oakville. The proposed new Burlington riding will only, in fact, be the southern part of the city with the eastern boundary along the present city of Burlington and town of Oakville boundary; then along that eastern boundary to the Queen Elizabeth Way, then to Highway 403 following Kerns Rd. to the escarpment and then westerly along the base of the escarpment, including all of the territory known as Aldershot around to the bay.

Thus you will see, Mr. Speaker, that the greatest area of the city of Burlington will, in fact, be outside the proposed riding of Burlington. The largest part of the city will be in the new riding of Halton. The riding name Burlington, therefore, is a misnomer, and I am sure this will tend to confuse a great many people. Possibly it should be called South Burlington or Burlington South. This, however, also may tend to confuse people, because they will be looking for Burlington North. However, I will leave that particular problem with the learned commission to ponder and to solve.

The approximate population of the proposed Burlington riding will be about 75,000 people, Oakville will have about 65,000, and Halton about the same. You will see, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that as far as population is concerned it pretty well meets the criteria of the commission.

However, there have been objections and opposition to the proposed boundaries affecting the city of Burlington. Naturally, I would make most of my comments because of the radical change in the riding as it affects that city. Formal objections have been made by the Burlington Chamber of Commerce, the city of Burlington and the regional council. The proposals made by these three bodies are about the same, and these are suggestions that there be an additional riding there, four ridings in the region, the ridings to consist of North Halton riding, consisting of the towns of Halton Hills and Milton; Oakville riding, to consist of the town of Oakville; Burlington East riding, to consist of that part of Burlington east of the Guelph Line; and Burlington West riding, to consist of that part of Burlington west of the Guelph Line.

You will see, Mr. Speaker, that these proposals, which are quite similar, suggest that all of the city of Burlington be in either Burlington East or Burlington West. The main argument for this proposal is first of all that based on the growth rate of the city for the past 10 years and projections of population growth for the future, two ridings for the city are warranted. For example, it has been put to me that in 1978 the population for Burlington West will be 70,000 people and in the same year the population of Burlington East could be about 57,000 people; again population figures which meet the criteria of the commission. The total city at that time, it is projected, would have a population of about 127,000 people.

Another reason, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that the industrial community, the heart or the core of the new city, is being split up by the present proposal of the commission, that is that part of the commercial and industrial area of the present city will be in the new Halton riding and part in the proposed Burlington riding.

This will confuse people. A man in some commercial enterprise or industry will wonder whether or not he should be talking to the member for Burlington or the member for Halton. I suppose the safest way would be to have the both of us there, I don’t know. In any event this tends to confuse people and I think demoralizes, probably, the people who are interested in maintaining some type of cohesive unit for that very prosperous and fast growing community.

This is one of the reasons the Chamber of Commerce has shown such an interest in the proposal, in the whole matter of redistribution, and is suggesting the four ridings I have outlined.

I have also indicated to the commission that if they don’t feel four ridings are warranted within the region, there should just be three ridings, that the northern boundary of the proposed riding of Burlington be extended to about Highway 5, which would include most of the industrial and commercial core or community of the city of Burlington.

I make these suggestions, with respect, Mr. Speaker, to the commission: That they consider the problem of the name, as I have indicated; the fact that there is a projected growth, based on past growth, which may very well make their proposals of 1975 redundant in three or four years; and the question of dividing, one might say, a community of this kind as far as its urban core is concerned, its industrial heart, the commercial heart, in two by the proposal, as has been suggested by the three bodies, of having a Burlington East and Burlington West riding.

The names are accurate and do include, as I say, the boundaries of the present city. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Brantford.

Mr. R. B. Beckett (Brantford): Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in joining in this debate in order that I may bring, through your office to the boundary commission, the concerns of the township council of the township of Brantford and my own concern. I believe the terms of reference for the boundary commission indicated that community of interest and means of communication should be considered. I would like to suggest to you, sir, in this particular case where the city of Brantford is entirely surrounded by the township of Brantford these two features of community of interest and means of communication have not received the stress they might in the report that is before us.

The city is surrounded by the township, as I said previously, approximately two-thirds of the perimeter of the city contains subdivisions, and the inhabitants of those subdivisions are persons who work or are educated in the city. I suggest to you, sir, that there is a very strong community of interest there.

The recommended riding would only be the city of Brantford with a population of 64,421, and there has been a statement made to the effect that the addition of the township would make too large an area. I would suggest to you, sir, that there are several examples of larger ridings; there are three in the city of Ottawa with more than 75,000 each, and Sault Ste. Marie has more than 80,000. The combined population of the city and the township of Brantford, if they were contained as one riding, would be around 74,000.

The township of Brantford has passed a resolution requesting that it should remain within the present riding, and I take pleasure in bringing this resolution to the attention of the commission. I hope that the commission, if they have an opportunity to study the matters again, will bear in mind the community of interest between the township of Brantford and the city of Brantford as well as the peculiar circumstances of the one being completely surrounded by the other and the fact that their population could fall within some of the decisions made with regard to other boundaries. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Glengarry.

Mr. O. F. Villeneuve (Glengarry): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak because the boundaries of my riding are somewhat changed. I can understand that, since I represent a rural riding. Our population is not increasing; therefore, adjustments have to be made. I am not critical of the commission. I realize they had a very tough assignment. As far as our area is concerned, I realize it hasn’t pleased everybody.

I do know that Dundas has had a very close relationship with the county of Grenville for many years. Now it will form part and parcel of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. But I can understand the commission would naturally follow the united counties guidelines since these three counties have been in existence as a united counties government for more than 132 years. One can understand that this would be the direction they would pretty much follow.

I did have the honour of serving portions of Prescott county for 26 years, both in the federal House and here, and I am sorry to see some of it added to Prescott and Russell. Again, I realize that Prescott and Russell are united counties and have been in existence for more than 100 years. But they have left one township, East Hawkesbury, with around 2,500 or 2,600 in total, with Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. I wasn’t made aware of this until just over the weekend, when I received this letter which I would like to read into the record. It is addressed to me:

“Dear Mr. Villeneuve:

“We are appealing to you to assist us concerning the following matter. We, the members of the township council of East Hawkesbury in the county of Prescott, do hereby protest the boundary lines as drawn up by the Ontario committee on electoral district structure. The counties of Stormont Dundas and Glengarry have been, for over 100 years, united counties, with Cornwall as the county seat. East Hawkesbury township is a distance of five miles from L’Orignal, which is the county seat for the counties of Prescott and Russell. Cornwall is a distance of 60 miles or more from our area. The large majority of the residents of East Hawkesbury township are in constant contact, in all lines of business, with the town of Hawkesbury and L’Orignal, the county seat of Prescott and Russell, where there are two hospitals, a number of good doctors and lawyers, and the registry office for our area.

“Therefore this council would respectfully request that the committee redefine the boundary lines and place the township of East Hawkesbury where it rightfully belongs, with Prescott and Russell electoral district, and in particular since West Hawkesbury township and the town of Vankleek Hill have been placed back in that area.

“May we also add, without prejudice, that some 80 per cent of the population of East Hawkesbury is French-speaking and would therefore be more at ease to continue to deal with officials of the services concerned. It is our wish that all due consideration be given our request and wish to thank you for your anticipated favourable decision.”

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the township of Cornwall, from the fourth concession north, is all rural. It has a council of its own, separate from the city of Cornwall. It blends itself in with the structure of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. The population they would take from the township of Cornwall would offset what East Hawkesbury in total is. In fairness and in justice to them, if I lived there, I could understand it, because we could very well have a representative in the Legislature who could live in Dundas county and be 85 miles away from these people. There could be, to some extent, a language problem. In fairness to them I can understand their point of view.

M. l’Orateur, je voudrais dire seulement quelques mots en français. J’ai eu l’honneur de représenter la commune de Hawkesbury Est pendant 26 années. Dans cette nouvelle Circonscription électorale, ils auront qu’une voix au niveau du comté. C’est-à-dire qu’ils se trouvent comme une seule municipalité entourée par les comtés unis de Stormont, Dundas et Glengarry.

Alors, quant aux problèmes gui se présentent à ces gens-là, il me parait qu’il ne serait que raisonnable et correct qu’ils pouvaient s’approcher de leur conseil départemental, qui devrait être Prescott et Russell, où ils peuvent parler dans leur langue maternelle pour exprimer leurs besoins.

Mr. Speaker, I have had occasion, in this particular township, to meet with the reeve and the council, and had to make an appointment with the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Rhodes) because tile drainage is becoming more prevalent in our area. They were confronted with having to lower 11 township crossings to drain farmland, and original construction did not take into consideration the levels necessary in order to drain that land.

Now, these are problems that we are confronted with personally. I am not arguing about numbers in urban areas or rural areas, but there are individuals who have their life savings tied up in farms who must ask their council to intercede and the council in turn puts pressure on the member of the Legislature, whoever he may be, in order to see if consideration can be had so as to make this accommodation possible. As it was, they had spent the road appropriation for the year but the minister, being a very considerate gentleman, managed to send them home satisfied that they would make the necessary remedial crossings possible so as to drain this farmland. This is one of the problems that this township could possibly have.

In fairness to them, I can understand that Hawkesbury and L’Orignal being close by could present their problems. In all likelihood they have to go to the member for Prescott and Russell (Mr. Belanger) anyway because of the fact he’s so much closer. In fairness, I would make that request to add the rural portion of the township of Cornwall from the third or fourth concession, whatever it may be, which is all agricultural area in the three counties, and put East Hawkesbury at their request in with Prescott and Russell.

It’s a problem somewhat the same as the hon. member has in Ottawa East. I think the adjustments made there were fair and just. It’s an urban area. Prescott and Russell happens to be a rural area, but this area in particular is along the Quebec border and the Ottawa River. If they request that, I would recommend that they receive this consideration.

Mr. Root moves the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, we will proceed with this debate on Thursday, followed by consideration of Bill 179 and Bill 176, not necessarily in that order, but those two bills will be called subsequently.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the adjournment of the House.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 10:30 o’clock, p.m.